No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper

I think you may need to turn down the sensitivity knob on your baloney detector. It might be picking up false alarms.BB cosmology involves a concept shift, a different way of looking at things. A lot of baloney detectors went off when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity. That's because relativity did not fit our familiar conceptualization of things. That's a problem with concept shifts (or "paradigm shifts", as Kuhn would call them) - they can be hard to take.That said, I am still myself a bit of a skeptic regarding BB. That's mainly because I don't think there is yet enough evidence. However, the problems you describe - those that trigger your baloney detector - aren't really problems with BB, they are mostly problems with your current understanding of BB.

There is a strong link between theoretical physics and mathematics. However, mathematicians do not re-engineer the universe. The relation between mathematics and the universe is not what you take it to be.Before you criticize physicists for rejecting naive folk-physics, you might want to study why they rejected it.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Yes, we need these threads. We need them, not because of what they achieve, but because of who we are. We need them because, as scientists, we are willing to listen to critics, and to take the time to explain when that appears necessary. For sure, constructive discussion is to be preferred. And sometimes such threads do lead to constructive discussion.

There is oodles of evidence supporting a cosmological red shift.The evidence that the cosmos is expanding, however, is far from satisfying.

Okay, will do.Let me first note that I have other things to do with my life than read the latest astronomy journals. So it is always possible that there is evidence out there that could convince me, but I haven't seen it.A second note. I am not going around decrying the BB theory. I am not claiming that I can refute it. If I wanted to attack the theory, I really would have to read all of those astronomy journals.With that said, here is my current position on the big bang:The initial evidence for BB cosmology is the redshift. The amount of redshift depends on distance, as shown by Hubble.Before discovery of the Hubble redshift, astronomers had been using shift in wavelength to measure whether a star is moving toward us or away from us. So it was natural to assume that the redshift indicates that the star or galaxy is receding (moving away from us). The original ideas of a Big Bang came from the conclusion that distant stars all appear to be receding, with the velocity of recession increasing with distance.The relation between redshift and velocity of recession comes from the wave theory of light. As Percy often reminds us, all science is tentative, and the conclusion that distant objects are receding from us ought to be treated as tentative.What we can surely conclude from the evidence, is that there is a cosmological redshift that correlates with distance. We can even give a formula relating the redshift to distance. But I hesitate before saying the redshift is due to recessional velocity. It could be that there is something we don't fully understand about electromagnetic waves, that explains the redshift. I'll note that the possibility has been considered and is usually referred to, somewhat disparagingly, as a tired light theory.I'm not claiming that tired light theories are correct. My concern is that I don't believe they have been adequately disproved.What about predictions from BB theory?The prediction most often cited is that of CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation). Okay, fine. However, in my opinion, you can predict some sort of CMBR based on the redshift alone. There is a classic Olber's paradox, why isn't the sky infinitely bright at night. The redshift explains Olber's paradox. But it implies that the energy that would otherwise make the sky infinitely bright, would instead be redshifted. The amount of redshift is such that the total energy would be finite, and we would reasonably expect most of it to be radio waves, such as in the microwave part of the spectrum.Granted, the spectral distribution predicted for CMBR is different from that for a redshifted Olber paradox. However, most of the radiation in the redshifted Olber paradox would be obstructed by intervening objects. This would affect the spectral distribution. That makes it difficult to distinguish between the two explanations of the microwave background.Here is my problem with BB. A simpler Hubble Redshift theory is more economical, and predicts much of what BB predicts. The more complex BB does make predictions that you could not make with the simpler theory. But most of those predictions are way beyond our ability to empirically test.Thus, for the present, I retain my skepticism. I want to see clear empirical evidence that is independent of the redshift before I will go beyond that.

If it is tentative, then it can be questioned. Indeed, it must be questioned. In that sense, it is questionable. To say that it could not be questioned would be to say that we have made it into a religion.I suspect you were using "questionable" to mean "dubious". That's a different issued. Note that I am not spreading doubt about BB. I only posted my previous message because of your request. I only mentioned my skepticism in Message 23 to illustrate that there are more reasonable ways of being skeptical than those used by the originator of this thread.I was reading an astronomy book a few years back. When it got to the discussion of dark matter, the author stated that one possible explanation is that our theories of gravity could be wrong. So the author thought that our theories of gravity were questionable (could be questioned), although he clearly did not consider them dubious. I did not present it as science. I presented it (at your request), to explain my personal doubt. Having personal doubt is not a "creationist effort". The creationists would not like my personal doubt of their religious doctrines.Keep in mind that I am not asserting "BB is wrong." Rather, I am asserting that, for me, acceptance of BB would be premature.I should add some perspective. I reject traditional scientific epistemology, and the base philosophical epistemology from which it derives. This rejection grows out of my investigation of human cognition. In particular, I disagree with the account of science you gave in Message 144. The "research programs" of Imre Lakatos are an improvement, though they too fall short as an account of science.

---

Regime change in Washington - midterm elections, Nov 7

That's tentative too.Newtonian mechanics doesn't quite work out for the cosmos as a whole. So I need to consider GR as currently the best alternative. Moreover, I need to build on top of GR, to reasonably understand the cosmos. Thus I tentatively accept GR.I have no need to build on top of BB, so there is no necessity for me to tentatively accept it right now. Please recognize that this is a personal position. I expect that your work does build on top of BB, so I would expect you to have a different view.--Here's an analogy from mathematics, where AC (axiom of choice) and CH (continuum hypothesis) are held by some to be controversial. Yet both have about the same basis, in that both have been proved independent of the other axioms of set theory.I have no problems with AC. Much of the mathematics I have done depends on AC, and we would be much the poorer if we were to abolish AC from mathematics. But I have found no great use for CH. Thus I can easily remain uncommitted with respect to CH, while committing myself to AC.

---

Regime change in Washington - midterm elections, Nov 7

My objections are inadequate to persuade you. But I am not attempting to persuade you. It does not require any objections for me to decide for myself that I am not yet ready to commit to BB cosmology. I have avoided saying that it is dubious.Our scientific knowledge is mostly an extrapolation of what we can test in labs on earth. In the case of cosmology, it is a gross extrapolation. One always has to be careful about extrapolation. If our extrapolation indicates a singularity, it may be that there is an actual singularity. But it could also be that our extrapolation doesn't work - maybe the principles we are assuming don't extrapolate that far.Even if there is a singularity, why does it have to be a "big bang"? Isn't it possible that we could be inside a large black hole, and what we see as a singularity is really the event horizon of the black hole, as seen from the inside? I mention this possibility to point out the difficulty of reaching conclusions when our extrapolation leads to a singularity.Our ability to extrapolate depends on their being a high degree of regularity. That the extrapolation predicts a singularity is strong evidence that the assumed regularity is not there.To be clear, I am not denying BB. I accept it as a possibility. But I do not currently find it sufficiently persuasive.

Well, fair enough. I agree with that. But I haven't offered it as legitimate scientific criticism. I offered it, on your request, as an explanation of my personal skepticism. No, that mischaracterizes what I said.The relevant comment about tentativity is with respect to the relation between redshift and recessional velocity. That relationship is derived theoretically, based on the wave theory of light. The conventional wisdom says that we should use the photon theory of light rather than the wave theory. So where does that leave the theoretical derivation?Granted, there is empirical support for the relation between redshift and recessional velocity. But the supporting experimental data is limited by the accuracy with which we can measure. You could account for the cosmological redshift with a discrepancy in that relation, where the amount of the discrepancy is far too small to be measured. And thus the empirical evidence is not, by itself, adequate to conclude that the cosmological redshift is due to recessional velocity. Wow! You have jumbled up everything.My comment about Olber's paradox was to indicate why I don't consider the CMBR evidence sufficiently independent of the redshift evidence. If we could actually measure recessional velocity by triangulation, you would then have independent evidence that would provide far better support. However, we cannot triangulate with anywhere near the required accuracy.My comment on tentativity was precisely because we are using a gross extrapolation. Extrapolation has always been questionable. If you can dig up some 100 year old applied math textbooks, you will likely find warnings about the unreliability of extrapolation. Near extrapolation is generally reasonably reliable, but still riskier than interpolation. Far extrapolation is always risky. The gross extrapolation involved in BB theorizes is beyond what would be considered far extrapolation. Sorry, that's quite silly. It is not even close to being analogous. There is good experimental support. As indicated above, we don't have that kind of empirical support for the precision needed for the gross extrapolation used. I also reject the flat earth theory. And the flat earth theory is exactly what you get if you extrapolate from purely local considerations. Newtonian mechanics was an extrapolation from low velocity local conditions. The extrapolation was not completely successful, which is why Newton has been overturned in favor of Einstein. Well, okay. Then I guess I will have to eat some crow here. Apparently the creationists have been right all along, in their accusation that science is a religion. You are now telling me that "all science is tentative" is merely an empty slogan, and that in reality science is a doctrine which one is compelled to believe.And to think that, all along, I had made the mistake of assuming that I should evaluate the evidence for myself, and reach my own conclusions based on my own judgement.

I'll start be rewording my response to a couple of points in Message 49. QM makes two kinds of claims. First, it asserts equations, and uses those equations to make predictions. I shall refer to those as epistemic claims. Secondly, it claims that certain particles exist (a variety of quarks, for example). I shall refer to that as a metaphysical claim.The argument "it works" is fine for the epistemic claims. But it does not settle the metaphysical claims. It is my understanding that there are some quantum physicists who do not accept the metaphysical claims, yet do accept the epistemic claims. They take the entities as convenient fictions used as place holders in the equations.In case you wonder, no I don't currently accept the metaphysical claims of QM. The use of complex numbers in electrical engineering makes no metaphysical claims.Getting back to BB, I have no problem with the epistemic claims. It is with respect to the metaphysical claims that I am not satisfied with the supporting evidence. When BB makes assertions about recessional velocity, I simply treat that as a place holder for terms in the equation, and I don't connect it to the actual (but unknown) velocity of the cosmic object.Now back to the current message (Message 52). I have no problem with what Son Goku posted. I see it as supporting my point. But perhaps I was too cryptic.There are two kinds of scientific law. Some are purely logical, while others are empirical. For the purely logical laws, deductive inference is sufficient. Moreover, we can usually take the purely logical laws as exact. For the empirical laws, we depend on empirical evidence as support, and we cannot expect these laws to be more accurate than the supporting empirical observations.My comment about photons vs. wave theory was simply to make the point that we are talking about an empirical law rather than a purely logical law. I don't see Son Goku's post as contradicting that. Please don't tell me what I believe. Your ability at reading minds is seriously flawed. I will take that as indicating that you failed to understand my point. I'll try to explain it in more detail.From the empirical evidence, we can reasonably assert that
R = f(v) + g(s)
where R is the observed redshift (or blue shift, as the case may be), v is the recessional velocity and s is the distance of the object.Lab testing gives us a formula for f, roughly the formula for Doppler shift but perhaps modified by relativistic considerations. Lab tests also tell us that g is too small to be measured.The argument that cosmological redshift implies expansion is based on taking the function g to be zero. However, g could easily be too small to be measured in earth bound tests, yet be plenty large enough to fully account for the observed cosmological redshift. To do that would be to behave like a creationist, to assume that a minor flaw refutes the whole BB theory.I'll repeat yet again, that I am not trying to "come up with meaningful criticisms of BB theory", although you are attempting to goad me into doing so. I have never asserted that BB is wrong. My assertion is that I don't currently find the supportive evidence sufficient to satisfy me. If you want to spend your time rebutting claims that I have never made, that's up to you. But I see no point in responding to such rebuttals. I happen to think the way distances are measured to be an example of excellent empirical method. That you ask me to criticize it only demonstrates your complete failure to understand my point. May I suggest more careful reading.Note that my comment was not "general complaining". It was not any kind of complaining.While our measurement of cosmological distances is based on careful use of a succession of methods, we have no comparable procedure for measuring velocity. Our ability to measure velocities is quite limited. My comment was simply that if we had better ways of determining velocity (as rate of change of distance), and if these corroborated claims from BB, that would go a long way toward satisfying me as to the correctness of the metaphysical claims of BB. That's not a complaint. That's an illustration of why I am not currently satisfied with the supporting evidence. Sorry to disagree, but extrapolation is inherently risky. Okay you are not a mathematician, so you might not be aware of this. It is certainly well known to mathematicians.Often, when we use extrapolation, we have auxilliary evidence that allows us to estimate the likely error in the extrapolation. However, in the case of the velocity of distant objects, we lack that auxilliary evidence. Your behavior speaks louder than your words. You keep arguing with me. But I have not posted anything that warrants such arguing. As best I can tell, cavediver doesn't find my position nearly as troubling as you find it (see the last paragraph of Message 53). It is as if you are trying to coerce me into an orthodoxy.What I have been discussing, is that the evidence I have seen does not satisfy me as sufficient for acceptance of BB theory. As I have clarified in this post, I am talking about the metaphysical claims of BB theory, not the epistemic claims (which I accept). I don't know why you expect me to accept your preferred metaphysics. It sure sounds as if you have made science into a religion.Or maybe you haven't been reading what I have been posting.

Good question. In one sense, I do tend to be generally skeptical of metaphysical claims. I guess I have a view something along the lines of Kant's idealism, although I probably disagree with much of what Kant wrote (or would disagree if I ever got around to reading it). Kant's view is that we cannot access the world in itself, all we can access is our perceptual experiences of the world.From the Kantian perspective, we could say that all scientific entities are useful fictions, and in some sense I agree with that. However, the meaning of words is in their use, and we don't use "real" to talk about an inaccessible world in itself. There are lots of ordinary things that we ordinarily consider real, whether or not they are useful fictions. From that point of view, what makes something real is our familiarity with it. So electrons are real; I deal with electronics, so electrons are familiar. But I don't deal with quarks, so they are less familiar and less real.To muddy the waters, I have no problem with the metaphysical claims of Newtonian mechanics. And I have no problem with at least some of the claims of GR, even though they contradict the Newtonian claims. Again, its a matter of familiarity. However, I am not so sure of black holes, so I have witheld full acceptance of them.

Nonsense.Your repeated mischaracterization of what I have been saying has caused me to use philosophical terminology to see if you can understand that better than plain English. But I have not made any philosophical arguments. That's your opinion. I have repeatedly stated why I consider the evidence unsatisfying. That you don't accept my explanation is not my problem.My last post, which you mischaracterize as "philosophical arguments", went into more detail than previous posts on why I am unsatisfied with the empirical evidence. Philosophy is bunk (paraphrasing Henry Ford). If a creationist wants to personally believe flood theory, that's fine with me. If he tries to persuade others, I'll point out the problems.May I remind you that I have not tried to persuade others. I only posted reasons for my skepticism because of your request. I have no interest in persuading others. Everybody should evaluate the evidence and come to his own decision. I'm offended that you want to deny me the right to make my own judgement of the evidence. Give it up, Percy. You still are missing the point entirely.The radiometric scale has been well calibrated over the range being used. Therefore, it is interpolation within that range, and not extrapolation. Interpolation is quite robust. It does not suffer from the problems of extrapolation.In the case of the velocity of distant objects, where velocity is measured as rate of change of distance, I doubt that we have any calibration points outside the solar system. It's as if we had calibrated radiometric dating up to 10 years ago, had no data points older than that, and then used it for ages 1 billion years ago. Your "casual dismissal of BB theory" is another mischaracterization of my position. Firstly, my position is to postpone judgement until more evidence is available. I still consider it to be possibly correct, though not yet sufficient to persuade me. That's hardly a dismissal. Secondly, it is not casual. I have explained in some detail why I consider the evidence insufficient to satisfy me.You are still treating science as a religion. You are demanding that we accept beliefs handed down from a high priesthood, instead of evaluating the evidence ourselves and making our own judgements. Science cannot work that way.

I would say "frustrated" rather than "abused", It is frustrating when your debate opponent expects you to defend positions that you have not asserted. It's a bit like debating against ... (ok, best to omit the names). I'm not suggesting there was purposeful misinterpretation. There was misinterpretation, but I put that down to miscommunication. It is hard for me to be sure whether that is misreading, or whether my writing was unclear. Still, cavediver seemed to have no problem understanding my position. You seem to be saying that you intentionally misinterpret and abuse creationists. If that was not what you intended, may I suggest you post a clarification. That's more miscommunication. You could not use my approach to argue for flood theory. Though it would be a stretch, you could perhaps use it to conclude (for yourself) that geological claims about the age of the earth are not adequately supported by evidence, and are therefore premature. But that would not support flood theory. For that, you would need positive evidence in favor of flood theory. And you would be missing the point. As I hinted, in the last paragraph of Message 41, we have very different ideas about what constitutes a scientific theory. For you, it is that theory it is that the theory is an explanation. For me, the alleged explanatory abilities of a theory are mostly marketing fluff, something used to sell the theory to others. To me, what's important about a scientific theory is the way that it drives the agenda for empirical research in the discipline, and drives that agenda in a positive direction.When we look at empirical investigation in astronomy, it is largely driven by the Hubble satellite, by the construction of very long baseline arrays, and similar technological advances. There seems to be more interest in obvservational investigation of xray bursters and of solar systems that might support life, than there is in work to advance BB knowledge.Granted, there is a lot of speculative theorizing about BB. If some of these theories get to the point where they set an empirical research agenda, that might well cause me to re-evaluate BB theory. The reason I can be rather casual about BB, is that it doesn't seem important to take a position at this time. 'Tis better to have a "false" theory that drives empirical investigation in a positive direction, than to have a "true" theory that does not much affect the empirical research.

To me, it does not seem particularly important. I gave more detail in Message 63 (my response to Percy). Granted, I do not follow everything that happens in empirical astronomy, so it is possible that my assessment there is out of date.

Thanks for that. I didn't know about WMAP, so there's some reading for me to do. Yes, good point.If there are actual black holes, would they affect the topology of the universe? And if so, how would that affect extrapolation? I wouldn't expect small black holes to be much of a problem, but what if there are really huge black holes? I'm glad to hear that. To me, it seems a natural question. Admittedly, its a tough one, but maybe somebody could come up with a way of tackling it. I wonder if there is a way of using the motion of our solar system through the milky way galaxy, and using two future points on that path as the ends of a base line for some sort of triangulation.